However there's a lot of people who would agree with those classifications, and there's several other issues which I see as much more problematic:
- It doesn't recognize biases other than various degrees of right/left. This is problematic because there's plenty of biases which aren't necessarily left-right. In the US, these include centrist biases, libertarian biases, and pro-establishment biases. The site generally treats a libertarian bias as center-right and centrist and establishment biases as being "least biased." Then you have sites like Hurriyet Daily News and Rudaw, foreign sources which are fairly centrist on US political issues but have extreme (Kemalist and Kurdish nationalist respectively) biases where their own areas are concerned.
- Almost everything is treated as having "high" factual reliability. When you group the Christian Science Monitor and The Huffington Post in the same class of factual reliability, that class is too broad.
- One of only two sources I found with a "very high" factual rating is the BBC. While this is a popular perception in America, I regularly encounter false and misleading statements in BBC articles. The BBC is certainly no better than sources like The Economist and Christian Science Monitor which are listed as merely "high," and I would rate it with CNN, which they consider "mixed."
- There doesn't seem to be a real system to the special classifications. In particular, Cracked is listed as "satire." But for the most part, it's not satire, it presents infotainment articles of often-questionable reliability, but has standards for sourcing and fact-checking. Yet because it's "satire," it gets a cop-out from the system entirely.